Philosophy of Science - Essay Example

Philosophy of Science Final essay June 20, 1502 words Constructive Empiricism is a concept that was developed by Bas van Fraassen in his The Scientific Image in 1980. This is a rather interesting approach towards viewing the nature of science since it features a novel perspective on what kind of knowledge should be accumulated. This paper will critically assess constructive empiricism. In order to do so, it will provide a brief explanation of its fundamental beliefs and review arguments for and against it. Understanding Constructive Empiricism To begin with it may be important to point out that constructive empiricism is largely regarded as the main opponent of scientific realism. Indeed, the formed argues that it may not be logical to accumulate knowledge about abstract and unobservable matters, while scientific realism often follows a completely different path. Another significant idea with regard to constructive empiricism is the high appreciation of literalness of the ideas that are proclaimed within its network. The above mentioned concept consists of two premises: the statement should be whether true or false; the nature of the statement should not distort the logical connections between the statements in the overall theory. What is more important is that some point out the similarities and differences between constructive empiricism and logical positivism. It is suggested that the former was able to continue the tradition of the latter without makes the same mistake. This is largely explained by the fact that constructive empiricism rejected the verificationist criterion that is largely credited for contributing to the drawbacks of logical positivism. One of the major places within the framework of constructive empiricism is taken by the doctrine about aims. It is important to point out that the concept of aim with this regard should not be understood as something personal; in other words, constructive empiricism should not be seen as a tool for setting the right aims for a scientist. It is more focuses on identifying the right aims for the science in general. Empirical adequacy is a concept that is of great important when it comes to assessing a particular piece of knowledge. Thus, the approach in question makes a difference between syntactic and semantic theories: they former are thought to be a mechanical aggregation of numerous factors and statements that ultimately result in a universal law; on the other hand, semantic knowledge is able to incorporate all the facts into the theory without differentiating them. Furthermore, it is important to explore isomorphic relationship between the knowledge and the evidence. Thus, it is suggested that the latter should be embedded into the former. The next crucial element of constructive empiricism is the concept of an observable object. For example, it is argue that cells can not be regarded as observable objects is they can not be interacted with directly, but only through a microscope. Furthermore, the range of observable objects as well as what makes such an object is often defined by epistemic community. All this results in the emergence of idea of acceptance. The latter is comprised by belief and commitment. Belief is the position that the knowledge that is being accumulated is true. Commitment is reflect in the desire to use a certain theory to explain every phenomenon. However, constructive empiricism argues that it is absolutely normal to accept a theory, but not genuinely believe in it. In addition to that, it also puts emphasis on the pragmatic element of acceptance. Arguments For Constructive Empiricism There are numerous arguments that might be used to prove the validity of the position that is advocated by constructive empiricism. The first one is argument from underdetermination. Nevertheless, it is often thought to be the weakest argument since it contradicts with voluntarist epistemology. Another point that should be mentioned with this regard is difference between empirical adequacy and truth. The proponents of this framework point out that while it may be rather difficult to define that a particular knowledge is true, the assessment of empirical adequacy is much easier and reliable. In addition to that, it is suggested that constructive empiricism makes a better sense of science than other approaches and, therefore, should be preferred since it allows people to apply theory to practice with the help of experiment and make sure that the acquired knowledge is useful for the people. The question of pragmatics is another that should be mentioned when it comes to defending constructive empiricism. Thus, it is argues that theories should be assessed according to their simplicity as well as explanatory power. With this in mind constructive empiricism is a rather good example since it strives for simplicity and aims to increase its explanatory power. In other words, this theory naturally becomes the best choice is compared to others. Another point that should be made about pragmatics of explanation focuses on the fact that many of the theories that are now recognized as not true were widely accepted by the scientific community. With this regard, it is important to point out that the power of explanation is among the most important concepts that are used to judge a theory. Finally, one of the major advantages of constructive empiricism is the fact that it allows people to avoid the so-called “inflationary metaphysics”. Indeed, this framework will be a perfect choice for the people who are willing to make sure that their knowledge is free from any metaphysical elements and reflects the world as it is. This is achieved through systematic rejection of abstract concepts that can not be examined directly. Arguments Against Constructive Empiricism Nevertheless, there is a number of proponents of constructive empiricism and it is particularly important to review the points that they make against it. One of the first arguments is often call the Miracle argument. It states that there is no miracle in the fact that some theories are scientifically successful. In addition to that the people who are against this framework argue that while explanatory power and by particularly important when it comes to assessing a theory, it is not logical to make a connection between the most probable or easily accepted explanation and the actual state of affairs. A good example is the idea that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Thus, though it is much easier to think this way, it does not reflect the actual relationships in nature. As it has already been noted, the concept of an observable object is extremely important for the framework in question. Nevertheless, this distinction may be somewhat incorrect. For example, one should acknowledge the fact that cells of a living organism are seen directly, despite the use of a microscope. It is not logical to limit the range of observable objects with macroobjects only because of the size of the human body. Furthermore, one should also make a clear distinction between observable and observed objects. If this differentiation is taken too far, it becomes evident that the knowledge should constitute of objects that were actually observed and the idea of an observable object becomes an abstract one. All this leads to the understanding that the concept of observability reflects the position of modal realism and somewhat limits the range of application of constructive empiricism. This means that within this framework a person is able to review the world in clearly defined parts that are being perceived independently and analyzed separately. Such approach greatly diminishes the significance of constructive empiricism and does not allow it to become a truly widely spread theory. A number of critics attack the position of the use of sense data. For example, if the priority is given to the information that is processes by the mind, one might suggest that the perception of the world should be limited to mental processes and exclude the data that is obtained with the help of senses. In addition to that, other critics point out the inconsistency of the theory in terms of Hermeneutic circle. First of all, the above mentioned concept of observability is largely regarded as being relative to a particular theory which does not make it universal. Secondly, there is some sort of circularity: there is only one theory that is used to collect the evidence and it is verified by the same theory. In other words, the process of verification stays within the same framework and can hardly be objective. Finally, one of the major targets of criticism is the commitment to reject abstract objects. If this is taken too far, one might suggest that constructive empiricism might acknowledge the contribution of particular theory, but it is not able to accept the scientific activity in general. Having examined all the points that were mentioned in the paragraphs above, it is important to note that constructive empiricism has not been able to attract many followers. Nevertheless, it is surely notable for the insightful explanations of the nature of knowledge and the way it should be collected allowing the scientists to organize this process in the most effective way and make sure that the evidence that they collect is useful for the science in general. References M. Curd and J. Cover, Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998. J. Ladyman, Understanding Philosophy of Science, London: Routledge, 2002. Read More